Georg Lausen wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I am the head of the Database and Information Systems group at the
> University of Freiburg in Germany. We have been working with rule
> technologies since many years. We have been implementing full F-Logic
> and applied the resulting Florid system for data integration, web data
> extraction and for the implementation of workflows. We have learned that
> specifying rules with a certain semantics in mind and to evaluate them
> is not the same thing. One has to observe that rule engines may have
> subtle differences in semantics even when syntax is identical. What has
> been missing for all the years is a layer of neutralization which makes
> it possible to clearly decide on the semantics of rule programs with
> respect to different rule languages and rule systems.
>
> I am now glad to see that the RIF initiative was successful to fill
> exactly this gap. They cover the whole range of rule languages between
> those having a foundation in mathematical logic and those being based on
> the production rule paradigm. The evolution of the semantic web is given
> profound attention by clarifying the compatibility between ontologies
> based on RDF and OWL on one side and rule languages on the other.
>
> I expect that the RIF Framework for Logic Dialects (RIF FLD) will
> amplify recent efforts on the integration of languages based on OWL
> using open world semantics with deductive rule languages using closed
> world semantics, as well as the efforts of the development of a logical
> basis for production rule languages. We are now motivated to investigate
> ways to built a rule language on top of SPARQL. I am convinced that RIF
> FLD will give us the needed framework to start.
>
> The RIF working group is doing a great job and I wish them all the
> necessary support they need to continue their successful path.